Sunday, June 12, 2005



ACT's list

ACT has released its list, and there are two big surprises. The first is the absence of John Banks - I guess the price he demanded was just too high. The second is the appearance of Dr Graham Scott in the number 5 slot. Dr Scott was Treasury Secretary under the Fourth Labour Government, and editor of the 1984 and 1987 Treasury briefings (Economic Management and Government Management) which established the framework for New Zealand's free-market reforms. He is thus one of the architects of neo-liberalism in this country. I'm glad he's finally ended up where he belongs - given his advocacy of neo-liberal economic and social policies, he should arguably have made the junp to politics long ago, rather than pretending to be a neutral public servant.

5 comments:

Graeme Scott is the father of Carla Scott who went missing in Aurthers Pass late last year.

Posted by Anonymous : 6/12/2005 07:38:00 PM

I'm aware of that - but OTOH, I didn't think it was that noteworthy.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 6/12/2005 07:43:00 PM

No surprise with the omission of John Banks. I thought it was expected. And it was not a question of "price", as far as I know.

As for Graham Scott, well, like Don Brash shows, it is one thing to be committed to being a public servant and implementing policy, and another thing in being concerned about the direction of the country and wanting to do something about it in generating policy. In this case, I believe his decision to jump into politics, like that of Brash, reflects respect for tpublic policy diminishing and his desire to do something about it.

Posted by Aaron Bhatnagar : 6/12/2005 08:11:00 PM

Are you really saying that anyone with a strong opinion on policy matters should not be a public servant?

If so, how many resignations do you think would be from Labour/Green supporters compared to National/ACT supporters?

Or is it only the ones that support free markets who should resign?

Posted by Nigel Kearney : 6/12/2005 10:25:00 PM

Nigel: there's also a difference between someone who strives to be a neutral and professional public servant and someone who is just a partisan hack. And when someone stacks their department with idealogues, eliminates the dissenting opinion necesary to formulate strong policy, steers policy in the direction that they (rather than the politicians) want, and (most importantly of all) is incapable of working with a government of a different ideological stripe, then they have clearly crossed that line and should take their chances at the ballot box.

Roger Kerr at least had the decency to leave Treasury to front an overtly ideological organisation to push his beliefs, rather than trying to do it from within the public service. By contrast, Scott seems to have left it rather late...

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 6/13/2005 03:35:00 PM